1 Communicative Language Teaching and EAL: … · 1 Communicative Language Teaching and EAL: Principles and Interpretations Constant Leung Introduction In the past 50 years …

1

Communicative Language

Teaching and EAL: Principles

and Interpretations

Constant Leung

Introduction

In the past 50 years many English-speaking countries such as Australia, Britain,

Canada and the USA have seen large-scale movements of people across

national and language borders. These societies now have linguistically diverse

school populations. For instance, in England about 13.5 per cent of the primary

(elementary) school population is regarded as learners and users of English as

an Additional Language (National Statistics, 2007), and in California 25 per cent

of the school population is classified as English Language Learners (similar to

ESL/EAL) (EdSource, 2008). Different education systems have responded to

this growing trend of linguistic diversity in different ways (see Leung, 2007;

Leung and Creese, 2008 for a detailed discussion). There is a variety of

approaches to English language teaching for EAL learners. In some systems

intensive initial EAL tuition is provided for new arrivals, in other places the

main response is to make the mainstream (meaning the ordinary) school

curriculum as accessible to EAL learners as possible. The latter approach is

premised on the proposition that if EAL learners can participate in ordinary

subject teaching-learning activities, then English language learning will follow.

In this and the next three chapters of the book we will focus on the ideas and

principles associated with classroom communication and participation, with

particular reference to additional/second language.

The teaching of English language, both as mother tongue and as an additional

language, since the mid-1970s has been in numerous ways associated with the

concept of Communicative Language Teaching.1 The ideas underpinning this

concept first emerged in the early 1970s and they represented a major shift

from a view of language (and language teaching) that was primarily concerned

with vocabulary and grammar. In this chapter I first present a brief account of

the theoretical bases of the notion of language as communication in social

1

Leung & Creese 3968-Ch-01:Leung & Creese 3968-Ch-01 07/12/2009 10:33 AM Page 1

ENGLISH AS AN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE2

contexts. This is followed by a discussion on the influence of these ideas by

looking at some examples of language teaching approaches which prioritize

the social nature of ‘communication’ (rather than other formal aspects of

language such as grammar). In the final section I suggest that the concept of

Communicative Language Teaching has turned out to be a broad church, so to

speak. On the one hand, the very powerful core ideas at the heart of this

concept can be adopted in a variety of teaching contexts. On the other hand,

our collective professional experience has shown that the broad principles

of Communicative Language Teaching need to be adapted and extended in

local contexts, if teachers are to meet the language learning needs of their

students. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 will provide four situated accounts of how

Communicative Language Teaching has worked in practice and the pedagogic

issues that this approach has engendered.

Language functions in communication

It has been widely acknowledged that the work of Halliday and his colleagues

in the early 1970s represents a significant move to a socially oriented concep-

tualization of language and language teaching (e.g. Howatt and Widdowson,

2004: Chapter 20). Central to this conceptualization is the idea of ‘language

function’. Function is understood in terms of the relationship between meaning

and linguistic form. What we, as language users, mean to express in speech

and writing is realized by the specific linguistic resources (e.g. words and

clauses/sentences) we select to represent our meaning. By the same token,

what we say or write is what we mean. Thus, meaning and linguistic form are

mutually constituting. This functional relationship ‘reflects the fact that

language has evolved in the service of particular human needs … what is

really significant is that this functional principle is carried over and built into

the grammar, so that the internal organization of the grammatical system is

also functional in character’ (Halliday, 1975: 16). A practical example of what

this means is to consider a statement such as ‘The Prime Minister said an extra

£50 million pounds will be spent on school improvement.’ The same propo-

sitional meaning can be expressed in many other ways, for example: ‘The

Government promises an additional …’, ‘An extra £50 million pounds will be

put into school improvement’, and so on. Each of these statements conveys

the same ‘basic’ information, but the variations in vocabulary and grammar

signal different emphases in meaning, which are an important aspect of

message-conveying through language expressions. The speaker/writer of these

statements would have different communicative purposes in mind. (This

point will be further elaborated in a later section.) This view represents a

major departure from the more conventional view of language that regards

language as some sort of autonomous linguistic system that (a) has universal

norms of correctness and (b) has an existence independently of human

language users and their needs. In passing perhaps we should note that this


COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING AND EAL 3

autonomous view has been very powerful. The persistent calls to teaching

students to learn to use grammar rules of the so-called Standard English

correctly, irrespective of context and purpose of communication, is a good

example of this enduring view.

A fundamental assumption in this Hallidayan functional view of language

is that what people choose to mean and say is open-ended. There are infinite

options in meaning-making and these options are categorized in terms of

three functional components (often referred to as metafunctions in the

Hallidayan literature): ideational, interpersonal and textual. The ideational

component refers to the aspect of language use where ‘the speaker expresses

his experience of the phenomena of the external world, and of the internal

world of his own consciousness’ (1975: 17). When people describe events and

feelings, the substantive content of what they are describing can be regarded

as ideational meaning. The interpersonal component is concerned with the

‘function of language as a means whereby the speaker participates in … [a]

speech situation’ (1975: 17). This is the aspect of language use in which social

relationships are expressed; speakers can adopt or perform a role in relation

to other participants (as friends or as teachers and so on). The textual compo-

nent represents an ‘enabling function ... the function that language has of

creating text’ (1975: 17). Put differently, it is concerned with the use and

organization of linguistic resources, in the broadest sense, to create a spoken

or written message (however long or short, complex or simple) to make

meaning in context. It should be stressed that these functional components

are analytical categories. In real-life language communication, they occur

simultaneously in speech or writing in specific social contexts. (For a fuller

discussion of systemic functional grammar see for instance Halliday and

Matthiessen, 2000; Halliday, 2004.)

Communicative competence

Another major influence on the development of Communicative Language

Teaching was the work of Hymes (1972, 1977) on communicative competence

within the tradition of ethnography of communication. His 1972 paper ‘On

Communicative Competence’ (first presented in 1966 as a conference paper)

explicitly addressed language education issues. It was in part a critique of

Chomsky’s (1965) highly abstracted notion of grammatical competence which

can be associated with an autonomous view of language discussed in the last

section. It was intended as a clarion call to language educators to pay attention

to the fact that what counts as competence in language communication can

vary within a speech community, let alone cross different speech communities;

there is ‘differential competence within a heterogeneous speech community, both

undoubtedly shaped by acculturation’ (Hymes, 1972: 274, original italics).

For Hymes (1972: 277), children learning to communicate through language

have to develop a language knowledge (vocabulary and grammar) as well as


4

rules of appropriate use. They need to learn when and how to speak, what to

talk about with whom, and so on. In other words, there are social rules of use

‘without which the rules of grammar would be useless’ (Hymes, 1972: 278).

This inclusion of the ‘social’ makes it necessary to raise questions of context of

communication and aspects of sociocultural practice when teaching language.

To determine what counts as communicative competence, four real-life

language questions must be asked:

Whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible;

Whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the

means of implementation available;

Whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy,

successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated;

Whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually performed,

and what its doing entails. (Hymes, 1972: 281, original emphasis)

This way of conceptualizing the notion of communicative competence

offered language educators a dynamic and socially grounded perspective on

language and language use. Canale and Swain produced a series of seminal

papers in the early 1980s that rendered the Hymesian ideas in more language

education terms with particular reference to additional language (Canale,

1983, 1984, Canale and Swain, 1980a, 1980b). In their account communica-

tive competence comprises four areas or ‘component’ competences of knowl-

edge and skills:

(1) Grammatical competence: this is concerned with the use of ‘knowledge of

lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics,

and phonology’ (Canale and Swain, 1980a: 29). This type of knowledge and

skill allows the language learner to make use of language resources to under-

stand and create propositional meaning.

(2) Sociolinguistic competence: this is concerned with rules of use, including the

probability of ‘whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done’

(Hymes, 1972: 281), that is, whether something is ‘sayable’ in a given

context, from the point of view of participant members of a particular

community.

[It] addresses the extent to which utterances are produced and under-

stood appropriately in different sociolinguistic contexts depending on

contextual factors such as status of participants, purposes of the interac-

tion, and norms or conventions of interaction … Appropriateness of

utterances refers to … appropriateness of meaning and appropriateness

of meaning concerns the extent to which particular communicative

functions (e.g. commanding, complaining and inviting), attitudes

(including politeness and formality) and ideas are judged to be proper in

a given situation. (Canale, 1983: 7)

ENGLISH AS AN ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE


(3) Discourse competence: this is concerned with organizational features of

spoken and written texts (of any kind). There are two elements in this compe-

tence: cohesion (Halliday and Hasan, 1976), and coherence (Widdowson,

1978). Different types of texts, such as oral and written narratives, diaries, and

scientific reports, tend to combine grammatical forms with selected meanings

in particular ways.

Unity of a text is achieved through cohesion in form and coherence in

meaning. Cohesion deals with how utterances are linked structurally and

facilitates interpretation of a text. For example, the use of cohesion

devices such as pronoun, synonyms … Coherence refers to the relationship

among the different meanings in a text, where these meanings may

be literal meanings, communicative functions and attitudes. (Canale,

1983: 9)

(4) Strategic competence: this is concerned with additional language learners’

capacity to communicate by using verbal and non-verbal strategies (a) to

compensate for breakdowns in communication due to a lack of language

knowledge or momentary memory limitation (or other psycho-cognitive

issues); and (b) to enhance communication (e.g. use of slow speech for rhetor-

ical effect). (Canale, 1983: 11)

This formulation of communicative competence expanded the conceptual base of

additional/second/foreign language curriculum and pedagogy that existed up

until the late 1970s in countries such as the USA and the UK. It is no exaggeration

to say that the Canale and Swain analytic account of communicative competence

very quickly became the theoretical and curriculum basis of the emerging

Communicative Language Teaching approach in the early 1980s, particularly in

the worldwide enterprise of teaching English to speakers of other languages. Over

the years the label Communicative Language Teaching has been interpreted and

reworked in various ways. But as a conceptualization of language, as a general

curriculum principle, and as a teaching approach, it has remained a central

concern in the work of language teachers, curriculum planners, textbook writers,

and, last but not least, researchers in language education (for instance Bachman,

1990; Brown, 2000; Brumfit, 1984; Burns, 2005; Council of Europe, 2001;

QCA, 2007;2 Widdowson, 1975, 1978, among many others).

Theory into practice

The central ideas in the two bodies of work discussed above have inspired and

influenced numerous curriculum designs and material development projects. A

brief description of some examples is provided here.3 As part of the preparation

for the introduction of the National Curriculum in England and Wales, the

curriculum authorities commissioned the Language in the National Curriculum




project (LINC, 1989–92) in the late 1980s.4 (For further details, see Carter, 1997;

Carter and McRae, 1996; Carter and Nash, 1990.) The brief for this initiative was

to produce teacher education material that would support the teaching of

English in school within the statutory National Curriculum in England and

Wales in the early 1990s. LINC (1989–92: 3) took the view that

pupils’ language development can be more effectively supported if teachers

know more about the systematic organisation and function of language ...

The purpose of the LINC material is to give teachers greater analytic knowl-

edge about language across all areas ... forms and structures of language;

relationships between speakers and listener between writer and reader ...

This material, covering both spoken and written language, draws on the

Hallidayan functional perspective. For instance, in one teaching activity on the

theme of ‘variations in written language’ for senior secondary students, teach-

ers are asked to develop a text-type game involving the following steps:

Material preparation: The teacher cuts up three groups of labels of writing

purposes (e.g. Complain, Inform, Describe), audience (e.g. Teacher, Police

Officer, Unknown Person), and text types (e.g. Report, Recipe, Personal Letter)

and puts them in three piles.

In-class activities: The teacher shuffles the three piles of cards and puts them face

down on a table, then turns up the top card in each pile one by one. The random

ordering of the cards may now turn up in unpredictable and unexpected combi-

nations, such as Complain-Recipe-Unknown Person (whereas Complain-

Report-Police Officer may be more customarily expected). The unexpected

combinations of purpose audience and text types can be used as discussion

points. The teacher can also use the various combinations of text and audience

to lead a discussion on questions such as: Should spoken or written language be

used and under what circumstances? What written or spoken language conven-

tions should be adopted? This teaching activity is clearly informed by a

functional view of language use that relates language form to purpose and context

in a systematic way. (For further details, see LINC, 1989–92: 156.)

This functional perspective was also adopted in the development of the genre

theory approach to teaching school literacy that emerged in approximately the

same period (the mid-to-late 1980s) in Australia.5 ‘Genre’ has been understood

in several senses in the related fields of language studies, linguistics and litera-

ture. The sense in which the term ‘genre’ is used in this particular body of work

is related to the functional view of language discussed earlier. The functional

relationship between meaning and language expressions at the clause or

sentence level is now extended to the whole text level. On this view, there are

socially and culturally powerful texts that deploy language resources (vocabu-

lary, grammar and rhetorical organization) in recognized ways. These context-

and purpose-oriented ways of using language, particularly written language, are

6


held to be sedimented into recognizable patterns. The term ‘literacy’ used in this

particular body of work does not exclude talk, but the main focus is primarily

on the use of written language for social and institutional purposes. Cope and

Kalantzis (1993: 67), for instance, argue that:

writing and speaking have distinctively different linguistic structures; and

different ways of using language have different social effect. Literacy, and

the types of transformation of oral language that come with literacy, open

linguistic doors into certain realms of social action and social power. It

follows that literacy teaching, if it is to provide students with equitable

social access, needs to link the different social purposes of language in

different contexts to predict patterns of discourse.

These predictable patterns of discourse are found in socially powerful texts at

different levels of society and in different social institutions. These texts tend to

conform to ‘[g]enres [which] are conventional structures which have evolved as

pragmatic schemes for making certain types of meaning and to achieve distinc-

tive social goals, in specific settings, by particular linguistic means’ (1993: 67).

For the purposes of language teaching this perspective would call for close atten-

tion to how school texts are constructed. Veel (1997), for example, suggests that

school science texts tend to follow a knowledge trajectory that starts with the

genres related to doing science (for instance, procedures for doing experiments),

which is followed by explaining science (causal explanations), organizing scien-

tific information (descriptive and taxonomic reports), and challenging science

(exposition of argument for or against an issue). A similar shift from the

concrete to the abstract in school history – from history as story to history as

argument – has also been identified by Coffin (1997). Each of these science or

history activities is associated with a particular genre(s). By examining how

language resources are deployed in the formation of a text in particular subject

areas, teachers can help make writing (and reading) more transparent.

Schleppegrell et al. (2004) offer an example of how this functional perspec-

tive can work to help unpack subject content meaning. Additional/second

language students often find the particular ways in which English language

wording is used in different academic subjects difficult. This domain or subject

specific use of language is often referred to as ‘register’. Schleppegrell and her

colleagues look at ways of helping teachers make subject texts accessible for

English as an additional language students. In this case the subject is history in

middle school in the United States. Using a Hallidayan approach that regards

meaning and language expressions in a mutually constituting relationship

(see earlier discussion on ‘function’), they examine how lexical and grammatical

resources are used in school history texts and how explicit discussion on the

language of history texts can help students to unpack complex meanings. For

instance, one needs to be able to identify events and happenings in history

texts (ideational meaning); happenings and events tend to be encoded in

action verbs of processes. But history texts comprise more than ‘factual’ state-

ments on events; they also contain statements of judgement and persuasion




(interpersonal meaning). Therefore it is argued that helping students to understand

that there are different types of verbs and that they serve different functions is

a useful pedagogic move.

The verbs used in writing about history can be classified as action verbs

such as f ight, defend, build, vote and so forth; saying and thinking-feeling

verbs such as said, expressed, supposed, like, resent, and so forth; and relat-

ing verbs such as is, have, is called, and so forth. This categorization helps

students understand when authors are writing about events (action

verbs), when they are giving opinions or telling what others have said

(thinking-feeling and saying verbs), and when they are giving background

information (relating verbs). (Schleppegrell et al., 2004: 77)

Furthermore, actors and agents (referred to as participants in functional

grammatical analysis) are important in history, but they can be difficult to

identify sometimes. At a sentence level, for instance, in a statement such as

‘Liverpool’s slave trade accounted for 15 per cent of Britain’s entire overseas

trade by the end of the eighteenth century’, it is not clear who the actors were.

In fact it is difficult to see what actions and events might be involved in

‘overseas trade’. The use of abstract nouns or noun phrases as participants may

be conceptually apt as a means of conveying complex historical events and

processes, but the language text expressing this kind of meaning can be diffi-

cult to decipher. Functional grammatical analysis, with its focus on the

relationship between content meaning and language expression, can help to

draw attention to abstract and complex expressions that need unpacking.

Communication and language learning

One key pedagogic point to emerge from the ideas discussed in the previous

sections is that language learning is more than just learning the English language

as vocabulary and grammar as discrete bodies of knowledge. Learning to under-

stand and use language in ways that are appropriate in context (in accordance

with the language practices of a particular community in question) is equally

important. Given that language teachers and learners are not researchers and

that they cannot know every possible communicative situation which their

students may encounter, an interesting question here is what constitutes

Communicative Language Teaching in the classroom. For example, Brown

(2001: 43) offers a set of characteristics that includes the following:6

• attending to ‘the components (grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolin-

guistic, and strategic) of communicative competence’;

• using activities and tasks that would ‘engage learners in the pragmatic,

authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes’;

• ‘[s]tudents are therefore encouraged to construct meaning through genuine

linguistic interaction with others’.

8


These characteristics suggest that, instead of finding out what people actually

do when they use language to communicate with one another in specific

contexts, Communicative Language Teaching has turned its focus to creating

language-using activities in the classroom to facilitate practice in communica-

tion (for a fuller discussion, see Leung, 2005).

The term Communicative Language Teaching is not often explicitly invoked

in EAL programmes and teacher education materials.7 This is, however, not to

say that the general principles underpinning Communicative Language Teaching

have not made any impact. In fact, many of the early well-known EAL teaching

approaches, such as Cognitive Academic Language Learning (CALLA) (Chamot

and O’Malley, 1987) and the Topics Approach (Evans, 1986; Evans and Cleland,

no date), place a good deal of emphasis on the idea that students should (a) be

directly engaged in doing curriculum tasks and communicating with others

(through spoken or written modes) at the same time; and (b) be given the

opportunity to learn and rehearse the necessary and relevant language related

to the tasks.

English as an Additional Language in themainstream curriculum

The mainstream (ordinary) curriculum is the place where a good deal of EAL

teaching and learning is meant to take place, particularly for those students who

are beyond the early stages of learning English (see Leung, 2007, Leung and

Creese, 2008 for a detailed discussion) in many English-speaking education

systems. Given that the mainstream curriculum is primarily concerned with

other areas of subject learning (including the subject of English which, among

others things, has literature as content), how far can we describe it as an

EAL teaching-learning environment? Again, although the term Communicative

Language Learning has not been routinely and explicitly used in mainstream

curriculum and teacher guidance documents, nevertheless the notion of

communication, as characterized in the last section, lies at the heart of the

thinking that the mainstream classroom can be made into a productive environ-

ment for EAL development. For instance, an early National Curriculum Council

(England) (NCC, 1991: 2) directive to teachers advised them that they should

adopt a range of teaching techniques that would allow EAL students to partici-

pate and to communicate in classroom learning activities which included these:

• Matrices, true/false exercises, data presentations and other display work can

help to ensure that achievement is not entirely dependent on proficiency in

English.

• Exercises with some repetitive element … provide a pattern that supports

language development.

• The use of familiar objects provides first-hand experience and does not

require sophisticated language skills.




The pedagogic value of participation embedded in this 1991 directive has been

repeated in many other teacher guidance and advice documents. For instance,

in a recent guidance document school inspectors are told that

All EAL learners have a right to access the National Curriculum and the

Early Years Foundation Stage. This is best achieved within a whole school

context. Pupils learn more quickly when socialising and interacting with

their peers who speak English fluently and can provide good language

and learning role models. (OFSTED, 2008: 17)

In the National Curriculum programme of study for secondary school students

in England one of the key concepts for the subject English (QCA, 2007: 69) is

‘competence’ which is defined as follows:

(a) Being clear, coherent and accurate in spoken and written communication.

(b) Reading and understanding a range of texts, and responding appropriately.

(c) Demonstrating a secure understanding of the conventions of written

language, including grammar, spelling and punctuation.

(d) Being adaptable in a widening range of familiar and unfamiliar contexts

within the classroom and beyond.

(e) Making informed choices about effective ways to communicate formally

and informally.

Terms and phrases such as ‘communication’, ‘responding appropriately’, ‘making

informed choices about effective ways to communicate formally and informally’

and so on quite clearly echo the concerns of Halliday, Hymes, Canale and Swain,

and others discussed earlier. So, on the face of it, the mainstream classroom

is, arguably, potentially a very conducive environment for EAL development.

It is communicatively active, full of interactions and activities, and the use of

language is (meant to be) purposeful. The next four chapters will draw on profes-

sional experience to examine the affordances and pitfalls of the Communicative

Language Teaching approach from an EAL perspective. Frank Monaghan and

Manny Vazquez explore some of the language learning issues that have arisen in

the English schooling education context. Alan Williams examines some of the

issues faced by teachers and curriculum planners when working with particular

groups of school students with ‘low literacy’ backgrounds in ESL programmes in

an Australian context. Angela Creese, working in an English context, looks at a

range of pedagogic issues related to some underexplored, indeed hidden,

tensions in terms of curriculum focus and priorities when subject teachers and

EAL teachers are meant to be collaborating. In different ways these authors are

concerned with questions such as:

• How far does ‘everyday’ classroom communication meet students’ additional

language learning needs?

• Does ‘communication’ in general provide the requisite language learning

opportunities for subject specific academic language?

10


• Does classroom communication provide the necessary cultural/transcultural

learning that is required for different groups of EAL learners with different

backgrounds?

Points for reflection

1 Hymes’s notion of communicative competence suggests that proficient use

of language should be grammatically accurate and socially appropriate. How

might this notion be put into practice in EAL teaching, particularly in the

context of a subject classroom (for example, science)?

2 In Halliday’s view any instance of language use serves three meta-functions

(ideational, interpersonal and textual). How might these be taken into

account when teaching EAL?

Suggestions for further reading

Burns, A. (ed.) (2005) Teaching English from a Global Perspective. Alexandria, VA:

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Genesee, F. (ed.) (1994) Educating Second Language Children. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

McKay, S. L. and Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. (2008) International English in its

Sociolinguistic Contexts: Towards a Socially Sensitive EIL Pedagogy. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Notes

1 It is understood that the school subject English in English-speaking

countries and English-medium international schools normally comprises

the study of English language (often referred to as Use of English) and liter-

ature in English. This discussion focuses on the aspects of English that are

linked to language use, not literature.

2 Some traces of this concept can be found in the 2008 version of the English

National Curriculum (QCA, 2007: 47), a curriculum designed with the

mainstream school population in mind.

3 For reasons of space and scope, only examples of use of English in school

curriculum-related projects will be discussed here. There are countless

examples of Communicative Language Teaching in fields such as English as

a Foreign Language.

4 The work produced by the LINC project was not officially published because

policy-makers at the time did not consider the material fit for purpose. ‘When

this in-service programme was reviewed at the end of 1991, it was decided by the

government of the day that it was insufficiently formal and decontextualised




in character and failed to pay sufficient attention to the rules of standard

English. As a result and against a background of considerable public dispute, the

government decided against publication but allowed the materials to be distrib-

uted in samizdat form for purposes of continuing training’ (Carter, http://www.

phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/linc.htm, accessed 15 January 2009).

5 There are other genre approaches that have different theoretical foundations,

see Bazerman (2004), Hyon (1996), Swales (1990), among others.

6 Brown’s account is oriented towards teachers of English as a Foreign Language.

The characterizations made are, however, equally valid for the purpose of this

discussion.

7 In contrast, in the field of English as a Foreign Language, the term

Communicative Language Teaching is widely used to promote course books,

language classes and language tests.

References

Bachman, L. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Bazerman, C. (2004) ‘Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts

organize activity and people’, in C. Bazerman and P. Prior (eds), What Writing

Does and How it Does it: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 309–39).

Brown, H. D. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 4th edn.

White Plains, NY: Pearson Education (Longman).

Brown, H. G. (2001) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy, 2nd edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Brumfit, C. (ed.) (1984) General English Syllabus Design. Oxford: Pergamon

Press, in association with the British Council.

Burns, A. (ed.) (2005) Teaching English from a Global Perspective. Alexandria, VA:

TESOL.

Canale, M. (1983) ‘From communicative competence to language pedagogy’,

in J. Richards and J. Schmidt (eds), Language and Communication. Harlow:

Longman (pp. 2–27).

Canale, M. (1984) ‘A communicative approach to language proficiency assess-

ment in a minority setting’, in C. Rivera (ed.), Communicative Competence

Approaches to Language Proficiency Assessment: Research and Application.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters (pp. 107–22).

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980a) ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches

to second language teaching and testing’, Applied Linguistics, 1 (1): 1–47.

Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980b) A Domain Description for Core FSL: Communication

Skills. Ontario: Ministry of Education.

Carter, R. (1997) Investigating English Discourse: Language, Literacy and Literature.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Carter, R. and McRae, J. (eds) (1996) Language, Literature and the Learner.

Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

12


Carter, R. and Nash, W. (1990) Seeing Through Language: A Guide to Styles of

English Writing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Chamot, A. U. and O’Malley, J. M. (1987) ‘The cognitive academic learning

approach: a bridge to the mainstream’, TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2): 227–49.

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Coffin, C. (1997) ‘Constructing and giving value to the past’, in F. Christie and

J. Martin (eds), Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and the

School. London: Continuum (pp. 196–230).

Cope, W. and Kalantzis, M. (1993) The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to

Teaching Writing. London: Abingdon Press.

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EdSource (2008) English Learners in California: What the Numbers Say. Mountain

View, CA: EdSource.

Evans, R. (1986) Learning English Through Subject Areas: The Topic Approach to

ESL. Victoria: Curriculum Branch, Ministry of Education (Schools Division).

Evans, R. and Cleland, B. (no date) The Topic Approach to E.S.L. video, Victoria:

Ministry of Education.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975) Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development

of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004) An Introduction to Functional grammar, 3rd edn, C. M.

I. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2000) Construing Experience

Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Continuum.

Howatt, A. P. R. and with Widdowson, H. G. (2004) A History of English

Language Teaching, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes

(eds), Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.

Hymes, D. (1977) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. London:

Tavistock Publications.

Hyon, S. (1996) ‘Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL’, TESOL Quarterly,

30 (4): 693–722.

Language in the National Curriculum (1989–92) LINC material available on CD

ROM or DVD, www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/linc.htm: LINC Project.

Leung, C. (2005) ‘Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative

competence’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 (2): 119–44.

Leung, C. (2007) ‘Integrating school-aged ESL learners into the mainstream

curriculum’, in J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds), The International Handbook

of English Language Teaching. New York: Springer (pp. 249–69).

Leung, C. and Creese, A. (2008) ‘Professional issues in working with ethno-

linguistic difference: inclusive policy in practice’, in D. E. Murray (ed.),

Planning Change, Changing Plans. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press

(pp. 155–73).

National Curriculum Council (1991) Circular Number 11: Linguistic Diversity and

the National Curriculum. York: NCC.




National Statistics (2007) Schools and Pupils in England, January 2007 (Final). www.

dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000744/index.shtml, accessed 18 May 2009.

Office for Standards in Education (2008) Schools & Inspection: Information and

Guidance for Inspectors of Maintained Schools, Independent Schools and Teacher

Education Providers. London: OFSTED.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2007) The National Curriculum.

London: QCA.

Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M. and Oteíza, T. (2004) ‘The grammar of history:

enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on

language’, TESOL Quarterly, 38 (1): 67–93.

Swales, J. (1990)Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Veel, R. (1997) ‘Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: apprenticeship

into scientific discourse in the secondary school’, in F. Christie and J. Martin

(eds), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School.

London: Continuum (pp. 161–95).

Widdowson, H. (1975) Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Widdowson, H. (1978) Learning Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

14


Documents

1 Communicative Language Teaching and EAL: … · 1 Communicative Language Teaching and EAL: Principles and Interpretations Constant Leung Introduction In the past 50 years …